20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.

          Methods

          To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.

          Results

          In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.

          Conclusion

          A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.

            The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care. To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence. Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted. The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions. Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%). Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials.

              The need for high-quality evidence to support decision making about health and health care by patients, physicians, care providers, and policy-makers is well documented. However, serious shortcomings in evidence persist. Pragmatic clinical trials that use novel techniques including emerging information and communication technologies to explore important research questions rapidly and at a fraction of the cost incurred by more "traditional" research methods promise to help close this gap. Nevertheless, while pragmatic clinical trials can bridge clinical practice and research, they may also raise difficult ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, the authors briefly survey the current state of evidence that is available to inform clinical care and other health-related decisions and discuss the potential for pragmatic clinical trials to improve this state of affairs. They then propose a new working definition for pragmatic research that centers upon fitness for informing decisions about health and health care. Finally, they introduce a project, jointly undertaken by the National Institutes of Health Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), which addresses 11 key aspects of current systems for regulatory and ethical oversight of clinical research that pose challenges to conducting pragmatic clinical trials. In the series of articles commissioned on this topic published in this issue of Clinical Trials, each of these aspects is addressed in a dedicated article, with a special focus on the interplay between ethical and regulatory considerations and pragmatic clinical research aimed at informing "real-world" choices about health and health care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                919-668-8753 , kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu
                adrian.hernandez@duke.edu
                gloria.d.coronado@kpchr.org
                lynn.debar@kpchr.org
                ldember@upenn.edu
                green.b@ghc.org
                heagerty@u.washington.edu
                sshuang@uci.edu
                ktjames@uw.edu
                jarvikj@uw.edu
                larson.e@ghc.org
                vincent_mor@brown.edu
                richard_platt@harvard.edu
                grosenth@wakehealth.edu
                Edward.Septimus@hcahealthcare.com
                simon.g@ghc.org
                Karen.Staman@duke.edu
                jsugarman@jhu.edu
                Miguel.Vazquez@UTSouthwestern.edu
                dzatzick@u.washington.edu
                lesley.curtis@duke.edu
                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2288
                18 September 2017
                18 September 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 144
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, GRID grid.26009.3d, Department of Population Health Sciences, , Duke University School of Medicine, ; 220 W Main St., Suite 720A, Durham, NC 27705 USA
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, GRID grid.26009.3d, Duke Clinical Research Institute, ; 2400 Pratt St., Durham, NC 27710 USA
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, GRID grid.26009.3d, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke Clinical Research Institute, ; Durham, NC 27710 USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7961, GRID grid.26009.3d, Duke University School of Medicine, ; 3115 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704 USA
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0455 9821, GRID grid.414876.8, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, ; 3800 N. Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227-1098 USA
                [6 ]Perelman School of MedicineBlockley Hall, Office 920, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
                [7 ]Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101-1466 USA
                [8 ]ISNI 0000000122986657, GRID grid.34477.33, University of Washington, ; 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359728, Seattle, WA 98104-2499 USA
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7243, GRID grid.266093.8, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, ; 101 The City Drive South, City Tower, Suite 400, Mail Code: 4081, Orange, CA 92868 USA
                [10 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0463 5476, GRID grid.280243.f, Group Health Research Institute, ; 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101-1466 USA
                [11 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9094, GRID grid.40263.33, Department of Community Health, , Brown University, ; Box G-S121-2, Providence, RI 02912 USA
                [12 ]Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive, Suite 401 East, Boston, MA 02215 USA
                [13 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0459 1231, GRID grid.412860.9, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, , Medical Center Boulevard, ; Winston-Salem, NC 27157 USA
                [14 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0158 6152, GRID grid.414420.7, Hospital Corporation of America Nashville TN, AND Texas A&M College of Medicine, ; One Park Plaza, Nashville, TN 37203 USA
                [15 ]CHB Wordsmith, Inc., 22 Bagwell Ave, Raleigh, NC 27607 USA
                [16 ]Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, 1809 Ashland Ave., Room 203, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
                [17 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9482 7121, GRID grid.267313.2, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, ; 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-8856 USA
                [18 ]ISNI 0000000122986657, GRID grid.34477.33, University of Washington School of Medicine, ; 325 9th Ave, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
                Article
                420
                10.1186/s12874-017-0420-7
                5604499
                28923013
                2ec58c9b-9427-42f8-9a8d-c3cc7bdb2d8c
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 26 June 2017
                : 31 August 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: U54 AT007748
                Award ID: UH2 AT007797
                Award ID: UH3 DK102384
                Award ID: UH2 MH106338-02
                Award ID: UH3 MH106338-02
                Award ID: UH3 AT007769
                Award ID: UH3 NS088731-02
                Award ID: UH3AT007788-02
                Award ID: UH2DK104655-02
                Award ID: UH3DK104655-02
                Award ID: UH2AT007766-01
                Award ID: UH3AR066795
                Award ID: UH2AG049619-02
                Award ID: UH3AG049619-02
                Award ID: UH3AT007782-02
                Award ID: UH3CA188640-02
                Award ID: UH2AT007755-01
                Award ID: UH2AT007784
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                embedded clinical trials,pragmatic research,pragmatic clinical research,cluster randomized trials,stakeholder engagement

                Comments

                Comment on this article